"The best and most influential Trek series"

And in doing so, it became "just a show". Entertaining, but nothing more. Certainly not inspirational, unlike the prior series.

Click to expand...

It all depends on what you find inspirational, I guess.

I find the characters' journeys on DS9 to be the most inspirational writing in Trek. I like TNG and TOS a lot, but the way DS9 took what had been done on those shows and challenged it, struggled with it, rejected some of it... It's a lot healthier, really, as a way of looking at the world than some of what TNG had to say.

I do love TNG, and there are some inspiring episodes, no doubt. But on the whole, DS9 is the story I tend to go back to (speaking of the overall fabric of the show).

TOS is more of an acquired taste to me, as it was already decades-old before I watched any of it.

And in doing so, it became "just a show". Entertaining, but nothing more. Certainly not inspirational, unlike the prior series.

Click to expand...

It all depends on what you find inspirational, I guess.

I find the characters' journeys on DS9 to be the most inspirational writing in Trek. I like TNG and TOS a lot, but the way DS9 took what had been done on those shows and challenged it, struggled with it, rejected some of it... It's a lot healthier, really, as a way of looking at the world than some of what TNG had to say.

Click to expand...

So you admit that DS9 stands above the rest because their was a great conflict to define the characters, settings and Trek universe? If all it took was conflict to explore the human condition, we would have a million clone shows on television.

That's like saying everything TOS has to be 'Balance of Terror' 'A Taste of Armageddon' or 'Doomsday Machine' deep, dramatic and powerful.

For TNG all you have to do is ask every episode to be 'Chain Of Command', 'The Wounded' or 'Yesterday's Enterprise'.

Hell Enterprise did what DS9 did in it's 3rd season when they were trying to make it dark, violent and dramatic with the Xindi. It's not challenging to do. War and or large scale conflicts breeds development because the protagonists are constantly threatened. It give the heroes multiple chances to be brave.

As far as growing with the characters, sure the characters grew since the pilot but when you have 176 episodes what do you expect. If you analyze which characters actually grew and changed you'll find it's only Sisko, Kira, Odo, and Bashir. Dax changed when she became a new Dax, Quark was always Quark just the layers were peeled back, O'Brien was O'Brien, Worf regressed IMO.

What sets DS9 apart is the journey of the show. From Emissary to What You Leave Behind. Being stationary we saw the character's day to day and knew them intimately almost. That's what makes DS9 so strong. The needle was threaded well into a great story. A significant amount due to what JirinPanthosa said DS9 capitalizing on TOS and TNG foundations laid.

That's like saying everything TOS has to be 'Balance of Terror' 'A Taste of Armageddon' or 'Doomsday Machine' deep, dramatic and powerful.

Click to expand...

It's not like saying that at all. Conflict can manifest itself in a variety of ways. DS9 was really best at character studies, not war stories. Or, at least, that has been argued before, and there is a lot of truth to it.

I disagree with the sentiment expressed in the article.
To me, what made Trek great was that it was more than TV show: it was a vision.
It was idealistic, yes, but it wasn't pointlessly idealistic: it was giving us a grand dream of a bright future.
Just listen to Dr Michio Kaku talk about future tech or space and invariably reference Trek, listen to his enthusiasm.
That's what made TOS & TNG so great: they did extreme (especially TNG) idealism right; which is extremely rare in entertainment.
Comparatively, it seems to be easier to make quality "dark & edgy" works than idealistic ones.

DS9 seemed to be about undermining all of that. Yes, some episodes were very well made (The Visitor, In the Pale Moonlight, Way of the Warrior*, Inter Arma enim Silent Leges,...), but the near-constant undertones either undermining Trek's pre-established ethos or pushing religiosity, it seemed to be trying very hard to be the "anti-Trek" Trek series.
And in doing so, it became "just a show". Entertaining, but nothing more. Certainly not inspirational, unlike the prior series.

And let's not forget that, while DS9 wasn't the worst-written series overall (TNG>TOS>DS9>ENT>VOY, IMO), it gave us the worst Trek episode, by far: The Reckoning. The Reckoning makes VOY: Threshold look good by comparison.

*note: quite an underrated ep, that.

Click to expand...

The thing is, TOS and TNG both relied on alien cultures from all over the universe that were anything but idealized to create conflict and show contrast. What DS9 did was reveal what it's like for our idealized humans to live with these non-idealized aliens throughout the series. While the Enterprise was able to warp away each week, DS9 stayed put. Cardassians, Bajorans, Klingons, Romulans, all were created on TNG/TOS. On DS9 their problems could not be always resolved at the end of each episode. They showed us what it was like to live day to day deep inside the imperfect (yes imperfect) universe envisioned on the previous Trek shows. And one of those imperfect races closeby happened to be deeply spiritual. Yes, Star Trek has shown that humanity is not the only species which has religious people among them. But DS9 faces it and does not warp away from it. That's not "pushing religiosity" (unless you're a theophobe I suppose) -- it's facing and respecting other cultures. Very "Trek" if you ask me. So I'm sorry, but DS9 is not "just a show."

Klingons were stupid gorillamen and drunks mostly. Even Kor who was serious and militant became a trope. Gowron who had intellect and courage in TNG became a spoiled and incompetent character for the sake of conflict on DS9 leading up to the Dominion War, and died a trope.

Cardassians were little more than epic trolls to the DS9 crew prior to the Dominion War. Always finding some way to fuck with our heroes every other week as if they didn't have a government to run.

The Bajorans preachy religiousness was pushed to much and to far in the viewers face. They were annoying, bratty and thought the universe revolved around them. TOS, and TNG showed us the universe is full of different species every week. DS9 camped down and we actually got to learn about one. I personally couldnt care less about the Bajorans.

Also it was Gene's rule since TOS that conflict show come from outside the ship. Sure every series has it's tiff's but never do we see a crew engage in open hostilities like mortal adversaries. These are trained professionals doing a job in deep space, on stations and ships. Not sports teams with competing records and ego of each player. All one has to do is look up Harlan Ellison and his controversy with Gene over "The City On The Edge Of Forever", and immature it is to insert faux drama in between the crews of ship. Not saying you can't write drama but don't be lazy about it. You'll find yourself taking the easy road out like VOY did with the Maqui.

Klingons were stupid gorillamen and drunks mostly. Even Kor who was serious and militant became a trope. Gowron who had intellect and courage in TNG became a spoiled and incompetent character for the sake of conflict on DS9 leading up to the Dominion War, and died a trope.

Cardassians were little more than epic trolls to the DS9 crew prior to the Dominion War. Always finding some way to f*** with our heroes every other week as if they didn't have a government to run.

The Bajorans preachy religiousness was pushed to much and to far in the viewers face. They were annoying, bratty and thought the universe revolved around them. TOS, and TNG showed us the universe is full of different species every week. DS9 camped down and we actually got to learn about one. I personally couldnt care less about the Bajorans.

I think also he will see that we don’t have enough inter-character relationships among our continuing people. We need conflicts, disagreements, rich personality relationship between Kirk, Spock, McCoy and others. Otherwise, our “television family group” becomes a rather uninteresting assortment of similar individuals who stand around throwing each other lines and generally agreeing with each other.

Click to expand...

Of course, Roddenberry reversed his position on inter-character conflict twenty years later, which, ironically, caused quite a bit of inter-personal conflict behind the scenes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

As far as growing with the characters, sure the characters grew since the pilot but when you have 176 episodes what do you expect.

Click to expand...

DS9 is the only Trek show that really has this, or at least it has much, much more of it than the other shows. It's hardly something that can be understood as a given.

DS9's writers were actually really good at building characters, challenging them, and tying together disparate plot threads in ways that were essentially character-driven.

The show compares favorably, in that regard, not just to other Trek shows, but to other shows in the genre, and even outside of it.

Where serial story-telling is concerned, DS9 is pretty amateurish. It's better than other Trek shows, and it's good that the arc episodes are there, but there isn't really much of it, and what's there is far from perfect. DS9's strengths are really world and character building.

Not all of the characters have Kira, Odo, or Nog-like arcs, but they are all affected by the journey in one way or another. Quark is a good example of that. In a sense, his journey is "staying the same," i.e. not being assimilated, not going soft as he puts it, or not completely. So Quark and his bar end up almost like the station itself: the main stable element. But the Quark of WYLB is not the Quark of Emissary. The difference is just more subtle than wth, say, Nog.

Why? Because Quark has had his initial views and values challenged in a hundred different ways since the pilot. He still has them, but he understands them differently because of those experiences. One could say the same thing about how DS9 challenged some of Trek's core ideas: they survive, and in a sense they are stronger at the end of the show than before. But we understand them differently.

Both were ends justify the means scenarios. Both Sisko and Anakin were tempted and gave into their dark compulsions with the promise of greater rewards by someone. One is a master of deceit who prides himself on manipulation and telling half truths with the power of suggestion to achieve his goals and the other is a sith lord. We saw both Sisko and Anakin weigh the options of their decisions and chose their own selfish desires. While Sisko's was indeed for a nobler cause when compared to Anakin. I think the body count for Romulan casualties outweighs the Jedi casualties cause by Anakin's betrayal. Comparing Anakin to Sisko in this way I find interesting because in Ep III we see Anakin go from a brave knight to evil bastard. One decision and Anakin slides further and further down the silppery slope "Into Darkness". With Sisko we get the same line every other Captain, Admiral and even Section 31 members utter " it's for the Federation" . So I guess that makes it ok.

Click to expand...

Sisko is Adama and Anakin is Admiral Cain.

The key difference is the net casualties. Anakin's net casualties are several billion. Sisko's net casualties are minus a trillion.

Sure, technically speaking they are both 'Ends justify the means'. But Sisko's ends are saving a trillion lives, and Anakin's ends are 'I rule the galaxy with an iron fist and slaughter anyone who doesn't go along'. Kind of a big difference there.

@Sci

Biemer did a lot of TNG work, so did Echevarria.

The only major TNG writers who were consistent contributors during its prime who didn't come to DS9 were pretty much Braga and Taylor.

Well, it might be if you look at what is on TV, and do not count cultural relevance with influential.

TOS, and TNG are both much more cultural relevant. Almost everyone knows Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. And A LOT of people know Picard, Data, and so on.

However, when it comes to whats on TV, DS9 had a number of major factors that we forget.

1. Large cast
2. Diverse Cast (how many shows had the main star as a black man, a arab man as a lead role, and was aimed not at a ethnic audience at this time? )
3. None-episodic storytelling, which as been the rage of TV for the last 10-15 years.

Yes, Babylon 5 was doing some of the same stuff (Non-episodic storytelling mostly) and while i LOVE babylon 5, it a cult hit, and due to the budget limits, has not aged well. (And lets be honest, some of babylon 5 acting was uneven, while DS9 was able to afford a better set of actors on most shows.)

Also, the people involved in DS9 have gone on and done a lot of important shows. I would still say TOS is more influential overall, but modern TV has a lot more DS9 then any other Trek.